|
Some issues we've already discussed - the ease of deliberate misquoting and so on. These are programming issues. The system could certainly be set to refuse posts with more excerpting than text, and refuse to allow the user to enter any text on a line that the excerpting sign (the > or : mark on the left hand margin of quoted material) appears on, maybe using a special character not on the keyboard, so this limitation doesn't lead to any problems. One could set the system to allow one to cut or include quoted text, only on a line by line basis, and refuse to allow the user to change the order of the quoted lines. (Cut, or don't cut - no other options). Most importantly, the moderators of newsgroups are certainly free to ban people who lie about what others say, and ISPs are free to refuse to carry groups whose moderators aren't responsible enough to exercise this option. As for the signal-to-noise ratio issue ... How about a hierarchy of moderated groups? At the top, would be a menu of groups - online journals, really - which only known researchers in the field could submit to. At the bottom, would be a plethora of unmoderated groups. In between, would be a pyramid of groups of intermediate prestige. Each group would be moderated by a participant in a group above, and would invite its participating membership, either from those groups below it (which have been associated with it) or on the basis of real life referrals. Participation in one group, would not prohibit one from participation in the next. Who dictates who is, or is not, a known research in a field? Whoever is setting up a particular board, and why should there only be one? That kind of centralisation merely faciltates the sorts of abuses we've seen on Usenet, by making it easier for online mobs to gather in a central location and then sweep their way through. In more objective fileds, the reputable academic community will probably choose to set up a board apiece. In those of a more political or controversial nature ... there probably would be a conservative board, a socialist board, a libertarian board ... and so on, the reformed Usenet being a front page taking one to a selection of boards. Naturally, if those running the respectable boards wish to have their efforts taken seriously in the community, their identities will be made public, perhaps in a series of home pages, one for each of their groups. One major structural problem, that I saved for last because it has already been resolved was the failure of the system, in the old days, to archive posts. It is less likely that somebody will put real effort into making a post if he expects his efforts to evaporate in two weeks. Yes, by all means, let us archive this material and make an electronic library of it. Make sure that good work is remembered. and given proper credit. But do the same for bad work, and unlike the case with Dejanews today, do not allow the option to remove that which has been submitted. Allowing this only encourages irresponsible posting. Is there anything we can learn from this, to be applied to real life, offline? One thing is not to take what we see online at all seriously, given how these consenses arise. Another is that it might be prudent to try to determine if a recent social change is net induced, and if it is, that one had best take a good, long, look at it. But, of broader significance, is the observation that we need forums and meeting places that aren't open to just anyone who wants to come, because they serve as a stabilising influence. Open forums, without the influence from such stable environments anchoring them in reality, quickly degenerate into asylums. Even with them, they are temporary affairs, that grow, flourish for a while, but eventually fall prey to their craziest regulars. The answer, then, is to create stable meeting places which those troublemakers are excluded from whose participants, from time to time, create new open forums, that people can met each other through, creating new associations of their own. The answer is not to seek absolute order, or absolute chaos, in human relationships, but a balance between the two. But there must always be an established body of ethical principle, wherever we go, because good intentions, just aren't enough. Click on the link naming where it is that you came from, and you'll end
up in the right place, unless you still want to take the Cherry challenge. |
